Alok Sharma, J.

This petition has been filed against the Judgment dated 6.3.2014 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer (hereinafter 'the Board') whereby it has setaside the Judgment & Decree dated 28.6.2000 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sikar (hereinafter 'the RAA') restoring that of the SDO, Jhunjhunu passed on 12.6.1998.

2. The facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter 'the plaintiff') filed a suit for declaration and partition claiming that the suit land was ancestral property belonging to the grandfather of both the plaintiff and the defendants-one Saligram. It was stated that the plaintiffs were the sons of Murlidhar-one of the six son of Saligram and in terms of a preexisting arrangement between the family members in exclusive possession of ?th share in Khasra No. 908/1 ad-measuring 8 bigha 15 biswas situate in Jhunjhunu. It was prayed that they be accordingly declared khatedars to that extent over the portion described in the plaint.

3. Written statement to the suit was filed on 5.8.1996 wherein it was admitted by the petitioner-defendant (hereinafter 'the defendant') Ramswaroop as also the two sons of another son of Saligram, one Vishwanath (the co-defendant) that the suit property was indeed ancestral. The defendant Ramswaroop in the written statement specifically stated that the plaintiff's suit be decreed.

4. Thereafter an application however came to be filed on 15.12.1997 by the defendant Ramswaroop wherein the admission in the written statement of the suit property being ancestral and that the suit be decreed was sought to be reneged from and it was contended that Ramswaroop was the absolute owner of the property having purchased it by registered sale deed dated 18.3.1957 resulting in mutation opening in his name alone on 28.5.1958. It was submitted that in these circumstances the suit laid on the basis of the property being ancestral, the plaintiffs being in possession of ?th part thereof as per a preexisting family arrangement, was without substance and liable to be dismissed. The said application was dismissed by the SDO, Jhunjhunu on 11.6.1998.

5. The SDO, Jhunjhunu on consideration of the matter and the admission of the defendant proceeded to decree the plaintiff's suit on the basis of the admission in the written statement with the defendant praying that the suit be decreed. It was also noted that even otherwise the defendant Ramswaroop in an earlier suit laid by Vishwanath- one of the other son of Saligram- Suit No. 8/1992 before the SDO, Jhunjhunu had also admitted in the written statement that the property in issue was ancestral whereupon Vishwanath's suit for declaration was decreed on 15.1.1992 and he allocated his share of 3 Bigha 17 Biswa in the ancestral land as per his possession in ancestral land on the basis of the preexisting family arrangement. The SDO also disbelieved the purported registered sale deed dated 18.3.1957 in favour of the defendant Ramswaroop for reason of it not being the original and also its belated filing making it ever otherwise suspect.

6. An appeal to the RAA by the defendant entailed by Judgment dated 28.6.2000 reversal of the SDO's Judgment and decree dated 12.6.1998. The plaintiff being aggrieved with the Judgment and decree dated 28.6.2000 passed by the RAA preferred a second appeal before the Board. The Board by its impugned Judgment dated 6.3.2014 set aside the Judgment & Decree dated 28.6.2000 passed by the RAA and restored that of the SDO, Jhunjhunu passed on 12.6.1998.

7. The only issue in the writ petition is and as argued by counsel is as to whether an unequivocal and clear admission made in a written statement can be reneged without a satisfactory cause to the plaintiff's prejudice. It is not in dispute that in the written statement filed by Ramswaroop in the plaintiff's suit for declaration and partition the suit land was admitted to be ancestral even though the admission was sought to be subsequently unsuccessfu